User talk:Bluebeat
Welcome Hi, welcome to DigimonWiki! Thanks for your edit to the Kokatorimon page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Ryo205 (Talk) 23:37, March 30, 2012 Character pages Character pages should cover everything that a character does, much like on tfwiki.net or the digipedia. Do not remove relevant material just because it's main plot. Also, we do not need to waste time stating that a character does not appear in the anime. Simply not talking about what it does in the anime accomplishes that. 05:32, April 1, 2012 (UTC) : But this site is not Digipedia. It is Digimon wikia. If you want to talk about what they did then fine but you do not need to go over the entire movie. This is about Kokomon. Not another Digimon movie's article. Trust me I've been an editor in other wikia sites before including Wikipedia for more than 3 years. I will show you a way where you do not need to state everything. :"we do not need to waste time stating that a character does not appear in the anime. ''Simply not talking about what it does in the anime accomplishes that."'' :Oh really? Then what's the point of putting Lopmon in that article? It should be removed as if that form doesn't even appear in the first place. This Kokoman doesn't turn into a Lopmon. Just because the standard Kokomon outside the movie does then we have to put a Lopmon in there as well? But aren't we just talking about the character? Now this article really doesn't make sense anymore. Bluebeat 06:46, April 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Dude, stop blanking the page, you're already vandalizing. I don't care about how you guys do it on Wikipedia, but this is Digimon Wiki, not Wikipedia or any other Wiki. We state EVERYTHING a character does, even if it's plot. It's our policy. Just follow it. ::Lopmon DOES appear in the movie's credits, Japanese version, and on a poster. ::"This is another personal opinion/analysis. And the rest of the information should be in Rosemon's own article/"? Dude, THAT is the character article. We list info for different forms of the same character on the same article, except on shared forms that don't fit in one article more than on another. ::"In the English dubbed version, her Digivolution was shortened and censored." This kind of thing should be on the episode article. ::Look, we know ou want to help, but you must follow our rules. I also made some mistakes when I first came here, everyone does, I think, but you should take some time learning how to do things here. 15:31, April 5, 2012 (UTC) ::: I am not and not blanking the page. Blanking is when you delete everything in the page. All I was doing was removing some information there and making it easier for people to read by putting the links. ::: My point was was why did you remove my edits and you said "Also, we do not need to waste time stating that a character does not appear in the anime. Simply not talking about what it does in the anime accomplishes that." - I don't get what you mean by this. ::: Personal opinions : But you just described Rosemon's Forbidden Temptation attack by saying quote: "Beautifully destroys the opponent's data in a shower of innumerable rose petals." which sources desribes her attack in such a way as "beautifully"? Wouldn't that be a personal opinion then if your described this in such a way? ::: Then why did you say earlier that everything that a character does should be in their own article? ::: And you need to stop reverting all my edits. You don't even bother reading them to see what changes I've made, bothered to understand what edits I made and stated nothing in the Edit Summary regarding why you reverted my edits. Look I have no problem with my edits being changed since this is a Wiki site and everyone can do what ever they like here but I don't like how you are only letting your own edits stay the way it is and when people change it you revert everything. ::Oh, I forgot to mention this: Don't change voice actor links to Wikipedia links, our plan is to make articles about them detailing their roles in Digimon, much like Wikimon does. 15:34, April 5, 2012 (UTC) ::: I did not do that ok? All I did was change your edits of the descroption and other forms back to the one that I edited. I did not do the voice acting edits. It was not me.Please read the history page properly :I am stating what the consensus policies are for this wiki. What your practice has been on other wikis is worth exactly less than shit as to how things work on this wiki, sorry to be blunt. This approach is laid out in our manual of style. We do not operate under Wikipedia's requirements of brevity. :According to Toei, Lopmon is this Digimon's rookie form. Whether or not it actually appears in the anime is a totally different thing from whether it is a version of this character per the franchise. If all we have for it is a mention in a memorial book or poster, that's fine. For example, we include the armor forms of the Digimon that appear in the CD dramas and Adventure-based video games, despite them not appearing in the anime. :"going over the entire movie" -- It needs to detail every single thing that Endigomon does, and it needs to include those details it needs from the rest of the movie for those actions to make sense when reading. In short, it should be a comprehensive and legible biography of the character. Because the entire movie is basically a reaction to Endigomon and his actions, that's going to have 99% of the events of the movie. Removing them from the article simply because they are major plot points is still taking away from Endigomon's own character history. ;Kiwimon :I stated that calling ChibiKiwimon a "minor Digimon" is personal opinion, not anything to do with Floramon. It IS personal opinion, because nothing in the franchise has ever stated that, or even used the term "minor Digimon" except when revealing to a specific '''Type' of Digimon''. It's like if you called ShineGreymon a "reptile Digimon". It's both highly misleading, since the phrasing is likely to be confused as an actual Type callout, and totally personal opinion, as ShineGreymon is not a reptile according to the franchise or even according to scientific literature. :Also, don't leave tantrums like that in the comments on the published pages. You may leave notices to prevent the insertion of common false information, IF you have backed up that it is false information with canon cites. Even then, we usually move those to the edit-notice, so that they are visible as soon as the page is opened for editing. You considering ChibiKiwimon a "minor Digimon" is in no way canon, nor anything more than your own personal opinion. :As for why I reverted your edit about Catherine's Kiwimon: as I said, it needs to be in-universe. A character within the Adventure universe would be bewildered if you said "Later on in the series, French DigiDestined Catherine was seen digivolving her Floramon into Kiwimon". Any plot coverage should be an account of the character's actions, not something along the lines of "we looked at the tv, and the images displayed showed this". It's distracting and almost always unnecessary. A proper way to put that would be something like "After the Japanese DigiDestined released the DigiDestined Catherine from the Mamemon Brothers in France, she digivolved her Floramon to Kiwimon," with a storylink citing template afterward. :On a final, pedantic note, we have yet to be canonically told that ChibiKiwimon "only" appear when Pummel Peck is used. 20:15, April 5, 2012 (UTC) :: G-SANtos just said if you read above: "This kind of thing should be on the episode article." so shouldn't we state everything that was done my the character and what was done to that character in the article? Confusing.. :: How reliable is this "franchise" literature? And isn't it copyright violation to completely copy the whole information? You should re-phrase the information from the trading cards. :: It is not a personal opinion. If Lopmon was brown and yet the trading cards say that he isn't or said nothing about it being brown would that make your edits about Lopmon a personal opinion? Obviously not. Chibikiwimon has not appeared by itself in any series yet therefore it is a minor Digimon. Look up the dictionary what "minor" means. ::Also look at Rosemon's article and look at her attack Forbidden Temptation: "Beautifully destroys the opponent's data in a shower of innumerable rose petals." Wouldn't that be your personal opinion of the attack? Beautiful is an adjective. You are describing to us your perspective/view/opinion of what the attack looked like. So that's a personal opinion. That's why I removed it and re-sentenced it. Isn't that right? :: Well that sounds great. Why don't you put that in the article then? :First of all, I would like if you didn't put your comments between my paragraphs, it would be confusing for any other person reading this to distinguish your comments from my comments. :The edit history for Kokomon (Adventure) says you're the one who changed the links into Wikipedia links. Do you share your account with another person? :The Rosemon sequence, I thought that since Evolution sequences are transformation sequences, which by their own purpose is almost always out-of-universe, it didn't deserve a mention on the character page. KrytenKoro seems to think the other way, and he's more experienced than me. :I think "we do not need to waste time stating that a character does not appear in the anime. Simply not talking about what it does in the anime accomplishes that." means that if you don't mention, then it doesn't exist. :I'm not sure if I need to mention it, but I'll be pedantic just to be safe: Don't use the template, it was deleted because Toei just confirmed Hunters is not a separate series. We currently are on the process of merging. It's going slowly, but it has already started. :"Beautifully" is sourced by the Digimon Dictionary profile. We separate attack description from the lead on species page to avoid redundancy, I think. :Don't list Numemon -> Monzaemon because of Digimon World. You can mention on the game section, but that Evolution is caused by the player, and thus isn't canon. See DW:EVOLVE for more info. 02:14, April 6, 2012 (UTC)/22:14, April 5, 2012 (Brasília) ::First off, I want to clarify that the above are not rejections of your edits. We like your principles, they just need fine-tuning in your edits. ::"I don't get what you mean by this." - If we mention that one character doesn't appear in the anime, there's just as much reason to say that as for any character from any series. There's nothing truly notable about it, and the point is communicated by simply not claiming that the character appears in that serial. ::"...But you just described Rosemon's Forbidden Temptation attack by saying quote..." - No, that is the official description from Bandai's Digimon Dictionary. You are replacing it with your own description of the attack, which is the personal opinion. ::"Then why did you say earlier that everything that a character does should be in their own article?" - changes to an episode are generally covered on the episode article, especially if it's minor cuts like this. However, the Rosemon bit is worth leaving in, since it happens many times. ::"And you need to stop reverting all my edits. You don't even bother reading them to see what changes I've made, bothered to understand what edits I made and stated nothing in the Edit Summary regarding why you reverted my edits. " - Yes, we have read your edits. Just because we don't have the time or space to list all the reasons they are unacceptable does not mean we did not read them. Especially since it's usually the same reasons we've already reverted on other articles. ::"How reliable is this "franchise" literature? And isn't it copyright violation to completely copy the whole information? You should re-phrase the information from the trading cards." - The Digimon Dictionary is the highest source, and I'm translating it myself. To my knowledge, it is not copyright violation to provide a translation of material specifically put out for promotional purposes. ::"It is not a personal opinion. If Lopmon was brown and yet the trading cards say that he isn't or said nothing about it being brown would that make your edits about Lopmon a personal opinion? Obviously not. Chibikiwimon has not appeared by itself in any series yet therefore it is a minor Digimon. Look up the dictionary what "minor" means. " :::For frick's sake: #Category:Minor Digimon. Do you see how stating "ChibiKiwimon is a minor Digimon" is just a mite freaking disingenuous? #Lopmon isn't always brown...so bad example. #You're using your definition of "minor", which is absolutely, totally arbitrary. Your use of the word is not only totally useless, since it is used in a comparative sense and tells us nothing about the character, but is very poorly defined and could apply to almost every Digimon, like Fangmon or TigerVespamon. :Basic principles: Our wiki focuses on reporting the things that are actually communicated by the franchise. We do not make our own analyses, which are nearly always proven false, and we do not talk about things that didn't happen, or even about them not happening. Coming in here and telling us that everything we're doing is wrong and that you're the one who knows best how to get done what we're trying to do...is not helpful. However, you seem to have a good work ethic, and if you can follow our Manual of Style we'll be happy to have you. 03:52, April 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Also, please read DW:EVOLVE. The infobox is not for listing every evolution, only the ones that occur as part of a serial's plot. 04:14, April 6, 2012 (UTC) :::And quit it with full-reverting a massive edit based on one quibble. We've tried to keep as much of your stuff as met the Manual of Style. The shit you pulled on Rosemon (Data Squad) is not acceptable, and if it happens again you'll get a block for edit warring. 04:16, April 6, 2012 (UTC) :::: And that 'shit' you pulled on the Talk:Kokomon_(Adventure) page towards me was not acceptable either. You frustrated, humiliated and put me down on that page. You could've at least just said this: ::::"Your edits placed all of that info back in. You didn't create it originally, but you were ''incredibly flippant and uncareful about your edits, so you inserted it back in."'' :::: Yes you were right. You should've just said this but no, you went overboard with your ego as an admin here and got a newbie frustrated and mad. If you could've at least thought what you were going to say through then this would've never happened in the first place. Its people like you that need to read edits more thoroughly. It doesn't matter if its mine's or other's. Let this be a lesson. For now I'm leaving because I'm really upset with what you wrote towards me. Hope you think about it and understand that your kind of approach towards me was not a good one. Goodbye. Bluebeat 11:49, April 9, 2012 (UTC) ::I explained why you edits were incorrect as you constantly called my work "terrible, just terrible, ask anyone else to look at it". I explained why it was the format that our MoS suggested, as you constantly called it "stupid and redundant". I explained that for those sections, I was specifically putting it in "the proper format", which you reverted multiple times with no explanation, not leaving a single one of my edits intact. I went in and reinserted any of your edits that I could when I performed a revert, while you simply copy and pasted your stuff over, didn't check what it was changing, and generally didn't give a shit about anyone's edits but your own. We even tried to explain that we agreed with your principles but were just trying to correct your actions, but you've started on this whole annoying pity trip and I'm fed up. ::Cut the victim act. You're the one who consistently inserted false information and violations of the MoS into the page, despite being told that you were doing it. Whether you did it out of malice or just extreme laziness is not on anyone but you. To avoid this thing in the future: you are not welcome here until you can stop making everything about you and your personal drama. 13:04, April 9, 2012 (UTC)